<Drag the most people out of poverty and inequality in the least amount of time ever
Other urls found in this thread:
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
archive.org
twitter.com
no one dare mention the cons of stalinism, this is now a pro-stalinist thread to the very end
i cant even think of any. sure there might have been the accidentally purged person who didnt really need to be, statistically this is probably true, but this can be chalked up to stalin not being perfectly omniscient.
Yes, i suppose the main problem with stalin, his biggest flaw, was that he was not all power and all knowing. If only he was this too.
I'm not even a leftist but Stalin was pretty fucking based
i could mention a lot actually
-he purged mostly wrong people, the purges weakened the red army.
-centralized the power to the communist party
ok i only got two but there's at least two more.
I fucking love his mustache. The left needs more strongmen.
tbh all soviet leaders stalin onwards should have pushed proletarian democracy harder than they did.
DO IT AGAIN JOSEPH
Even if you hate Stalin you should be the most rabid Stalinist possible when around any anticommunists. No one but us has any right to criticize the CCCP. Nothing on this planet should fill you with more fury than watching libs condemn the "crimes" of communism with cringe-inducing moralism then do a complete 180 and fellate US imperialism as a humanitarian mission or some shit.
A spectre is haunting the boards — the spectre of Stalin. All the powers of old boards have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Fascist and Liberal, Zig Forums and leddit, young student radicals and MAGA cucks.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Stalinist by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Stalinism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:
I. Stalin is already acknowledged by all board powers to be itself a power.
II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Stalin with a manifesto of the party itself.
To this end, Communists of various tendencies have assembled in Zig Forums and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and ""Danish"" languages.
I wish Stalin was my uncle
Real talk I am a ☭TANKIE☭ and I will defend the fuck out of anarchists around any sort of anti-leftists. It does go both ways.
He wasn’t le ebil murderer who personally ate 60 billion Ukrainian babies, but he had a lot of major fuck ups that contributed to the ultimate downfall of the USSR. The bad shit he did was in some ways forced on him sure, but that doesn’t mean that his decisions didn’t cause a lot of damage.
come on now. unless stalin abolished the soviets, then he didn't.
explain how would you establish a centrally planned economy for a country with 150 million people without a bureaucracy.
people were encouraged to report corruption, and there were many instances of officers being discharged for corruption and other crimes. this was also one of the reasons that the party had to be purged periodically, notice there weren't any more purged after stalin's death.
some officers getting purged is not a major reason for the setbacks in 1941/2
Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao all ended up acting on assumptions of bad faith in their allies a lot more than was warranted and it ended up opening the doors of revisionism.
However, their loss was a blow to the left, and what came after wasn't mistakes, it was pure reaction, and the overall loss of the eastern bloc really did cause a wave of reaction.
I don't think I'll ever like any of them, but I can appreciate their value.
Question.
Why couldn't Trotsky just get along with Stalin and work with him instead of getting into a power struggle?
I don't.
He was probably terrible family man, but a great politician
Trotsky was an autist and everything about his theory is autism, and not even in the creative way.
You do realise 'power struggle' wasn't some ambivalent, abstract matter of 'who gets to be the top boss' right?
They advocated different policies. They disagreed.
What 'get along' means is either asking why Trotsky didn't just agree with everything Stalin said and believe in all the things Stalin believed, or asking why Stalin didn't just agree with everything Trotsky said.
lol
Well, yeah.
I'm just what was it that was so irreconcilable?
Was it over "socialism in one state" thing?
The concept of 'socialism in one country' was the conflagration of a whole lot of issues that were dividing the party leadership at the time, but there were many issues at stake. The direction of soviet foreign policy, perspectives on and support for revolutions abroad, the NEP and dealing with its aftermath, questions of industrialisation, attitude towards the kulaks, the role of the party, the checks necessary on bureaucrats, etc.
If you want to read about the issues of contention and polices in detail then Trotsky's side is probably best written out in his 1928 'The Third International After Lenin'
marxists.org
His 1923 'New Course' which serves as a sort of initial manifesto
marxists.org
And 'The Revolution Betrayed' for a later historical overview.
marxists.org
As for the Stalin side, its a bit sparser since people like Stalin, Zinoviev and Bukharin who led the charge against Trotsky didn't dedicate much time to opposing his ideas once he was removed from the party. But you can look at Stalin's report to the 13th party congress where he argues against Trotsky's assessments
marxists.org
Bukharin's 1924 essay against Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution
marxists.org
And Zinoviev's 1925 essay against 'Trotskyism'
marxists.org
You forgot to mention Soviet support to antifascists in Spain and Chine, as well as support for communist party of China in winning civil war and making China great. USSR also supported communist parties of India (and Bangladesh),Vietnam and Indonesia. All four of which fought for independence of their countries. USSR also provided diplomatic support for Indonesia, India and Libya in these countries gaining their independence. Stalin literally killed millions (of axis soldiers) to save billions (of Indians and Chinese)
He disbanded the left and right oppositions and effectively made legal opposition within the party impossible. Without the ability of the minority to freely speak and criticize the ruling faction there is no democracy.
It’s not just the existence of the bureaucracy, it’s the fact that in the absence of democratic checks on their power they effectively grew into a ruling elite. Lenin, Mao, Kim Il Sung and others warned against the dangers of this.
Maybe during Stalin’s rule, but his destruction of any kind of democratic oversight meant that corruption could run rampant, and it did in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Eventually those corrupt bureaucrats figured they could make more money as porkies than as government officials, and they dismantled the USSR and restored capitalism.
The purges didn’t work, they never work. Hoxha conducted regular purges for decades on end and Albania became revisionist literally the second he died. There were no more major purges afterwards because the people who would have been purged were running the government.
When you build a massive repressive state apparatus to root out corruption and revisionism, you run the risk of this same apparatus falling into the hands of those same corrupt revisionists. That’s exactly what happened.
Thanks,
I will look into it some more.
im starting to swing back around from hating anarkiddies more to being fed up with you cultists again
Sauce? Dont doubt it but just want to have a hard source for it
lmao
He was a good guy. Hard worker, passionately devoted to the cause, loved his family, no-one's perfect but Stalin did his best under tough circumstances.
wtf i hate trotsky now
This
If we let libs and reactionaries get away with bullshit about anarchos just imagine the level of crap they'll get away with against MLs
Agreed, very good position guys. Tho I dont usually full out defend Stalin because that makes burger ears seal and eyes glaze over, I just try to say "he was just the guy at the top at a hard time" and try to discredit as much as possible of the absurd gorillions personally killed by Mario himself propaganda
Can you expand on this?
Stalin's biggest mistake was, ironically, not being paranoid enough - being too trusting of others. Should have never trusted Yezhov or Khrushchev, for example.
Or maybe there's a reason his administration was filled with well-behaved opportunists? Maybe it had something to do with purging all of the old Bolsheviks?
It also makes you look like a retard if you defend him too autistically and refuse to acknowledge any of his fuck ups. Imo there's no real need to vehemently defend the non-existent legacy of the 60+ years dead leader of a now defunct state. Just tell liberals what you actually think of him, and tell them the truth, that is despite his mistakes and the damage he may have caused (which were never any worse than those of porkies, and were done under extreme circumstances) he still saved the world from Nazism and dramatically improved the lives of over a hundred million people. The key to dealing with any bad shit communists may have done (and we did bad shit, let's be honest) isn't to deny it, but to put it in perspective. Denying that any innocents died in the purges makes you look like an ahistorical retard, but pointing out that capitalism has done much worse, and while not under any existential threat like the Soviets were, is both true and a more sound/defensible position.
Hello Grover Furr. Don't you have an english lit class to teach?
Excellent post, agreed.
Do people have any actual objections to Furr?
Yes, he is a dishonest historian who defeats his own anti-propaganda efforts by taking "Stalin dindu nuffin wrong ever" as his starting point
How is he dishonest?
Massacre at Katyn. Sure they were Nazi sympathisers but they were prisoners. You don't execute prisoners en masse.
The Purges and Moscow Trials. Most verdicts relied on forced confessions and contradictory accounts.
Censorship of media. Stalin had to personally approve nearly every piece of art, cinema, etc. that was State-sponsored and for mass consumption.
Invasion of Poland.
Stalin did a lot of retarded shit but Katyn was 100% deserved and good. Literally no reason to keep the fascist polish porkies alive.
Also there was never an invasion of Poland. The soviets simply liberated the territories of the ukrainian, belorussian and lithuanian soviet republics from tyrannical polish occupation, as well as saving them from nazi occupation for at least a year or two. It was entirely the right thing to do.
The Moscow trials and purges were a complete farce and tragedy that should've never happened and one of the larger acts of self-harm committed by the soviets and party control of art and the media was always a dumb idea.
pretty sure there's a lot of evidence to suggest the nazis were responsible.
no he didn't, this is the typical old "dude socialism is like 1984 the big evil dictator is in control of everything!!!11". Stalin literally wasn't in a position as General Secretary to sit around approving art and media all day, that'd take up most of his job. he had more important things to do.
it wasn't really an invasion, it was basically stepping in to prevent the krauts from taking the whole country. once again, this is a meme argument i'd expect to hear from a 15 year old armchair historian who unironically thinks Hitler and Stalin were in cahoots and shared Poland between each other.
I still have problems believing it was the Soviets. Only evidence we have is the document that emerged during Glasnost. Even if the Soviets did it, kinda funny anarchists and Leftcoms would cry so much about a bunch of reactionary Polish officers. They spout slogans like "kill all cops" and celebrate the raping of nuns in Catalonia but somehow use this as an argument against Marxism-Leninism.
Agreed.
Bullshit. He didn't have time for that.
The Polish state and the Polish government have ceased to exist before a Red Army soldier stepped onto so-called Polish soil. That's not how you define an invasion.
